This is NeXT-review-in-July-"Unix-Review"-somewhat-goofy in view mode; [Up]
Date: Sun 19-Jun-1990 15:02:02 From: Unknown Subject: NeXT review in July "Unix Review" somewhat goofy The July "Unix Review" has a review of the NeXT. Don't you find it annoying when magazines review computers you already know something about? The errors leap out at you. Anyway, the review is generally mildly positive (with an overall raiting of "average"). here's what disturbs me. The reviewier claims that the machine is missing some basic Unix features: "As a UNIX box - it lacks a number of essentials." and this seems to be based mostly on 1. Getting the Mach shell to run straight Unix is neither easy nor well documented. When a Mach window is opened and 'vi' is started, the default is to run 'vi' in its open mode. Running 'vi' as a line-oriented editor is not much fun and we can see absolutely no reason why Next did this. It is almost as if Next wanted to make it difficult for someone to use its system as a Unix box." and also 2. "It is interesting (if somewhat embarassing) to note that the password file is one of several areas where we had unresolved problems with the Next operating system. We prefer the Bourne shell to the C shell. By default, the Next machine configures the root login to use the C shell. NOrmally to change this you can modify the password file to contain the Bourne shell as the login shell (sh instead of csh). We modified the password file appropriately but were unable to login to the bourne shell; instead we kept getting the C shell. Of all the systems we have used to date, the Next stands alone in not letting us use login as root with the Bourne shell". 3. "Documentation is a weak area for the Next box. The manuals seem adequate for the applications provided, but printed Unix manuals are not included and there is little documentation provided on programming the system. It would be nearly impossible to take what documentation we received and do even a minimal amount of software development. Its omission saves little in cost for Next but causes problems for the user. We rate documentation as "fair". Now I am no NeXT expert, but I do know that point 1 can be fixed by using 'Terminal' instead of 'Shell', point 2 can be fixed by 'niload passwd . </etc/passwd' and as for point 3 - the documentation is online, print what you like. NeXT should get bonus points for this rather than a rating of "fair". It would be fair to say that these points are not obvious to the casual observer, but it is certainly unfair to slam a machine based on misunderstandings about what it can do. Doesn't a reviewer have a responsibility to find out if something they can't figure out really is impossible or if it's just a misunderstanding? I might write a letter to the magazine. This is the first time I've read a review where I could see obvious mistakes affecting the outcome of the review. It makes me worry about trusting other reviews. Steve
Date: Sun 19-Jun-1990 19:29:45 From: Unknown Subject: Re: NeXT review in July "Unix Review" somewhat goofy Indeed, one can put the line '/bin/sh' in one's .cshrc! That sort of objection is pretty trivial, and suggests a somewhat parochial viewpoint which is quite out of place in a reviewer. I haven't seen the review yet, but it seems to be right up there with the Byte review which compared the cube adversely to the Everex Step/33. No doubt the Everex ran faster; on the other hand, Everex's version of Next Step leaves something to be desired :-)
Date: Sun 20-Jun-1990 03:09:36 From: Unknown Subject: Re: NeXT review in July "Unix Review" somewhat goofy In article <48107@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> sahayman@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Steve Hayman) writes: >The July "Unix Review" has a review of the NeXT. Don't you find it >annoying when magazines review computers you already know something about? Yes, but then, few reviews of equipment I've worked with have ever discussed the issues I felt were important, instead concentrating on meaningless trivia. This has been particularly true with the NeXT. I haven't yet seen a review of the cube that didn't make me burst out laughing at least once. In fairness, anyone who tries to review the NeXT in a targeted magazine is doomed; it's not a Mac, it's not a Unix workstation, it's not a desktop publishing box, and it's not a video game machine. After a year and a half of working with it, I'm *still* not sure what it is, or who should buy it. I have a fair amount of sympathy for the poor schmuck that has one on his desk for three days and has to come up with a dazzling, insightful review.
Date: Sun 20-Jun-1990 04:44:07 From: Unknown Subject: Re: NeXT review in July "Unix Review" somewhat goofy And now a reply from the opposite camp. Bear in mind that I haven't read the "Unix Review" article yet and that I do disagree with the BYTE review of the NeXT (and the Apollo review in the same issue). The NeXT is definitely not like any "normal" Unix box. To someone who probably only ran the cube for a week or two before writing the review using niload, a utility that is unique to the NeXT, to update a password is probably not obvious. I could be completely wrong about this time scale, but this is the impression I get from other reviews in this magazine. And it is not well documented. niload is not mentioned in the passwd(1) man page (which is where I would look if I didn't know "better"). Has anyone seen a printed copy of the manuals that doesn't say "Preliminary?" Is there a complete set of on-line documents? In my opinion, the NeXT is nice as a single user workstation. It is easy to hook a bunch of them together and maintain a NeXT/NetInfo network. But if you're trying to hook a NeXT to someone else's Unix network you're in for some "interesting" times. NeXT did things "right" and everybody else better figure it out and step in line. If you're looking for a generic Unix box, the NeXT isn't it and I think that's what the reviewer found out. If you want a machine with a different graphical front end, some nifty bundled software, interesting hardware, and it happens to run Unix, the NeXT might be for you. It all depends on what you want. Brian NeXT. However, I don't hate it and I realize a lot of other people like it. I read this group to keep my mind open, and to figure out how to work with the machines I have. Who knows, maybe when RenderMan, color and the '040 arrive I'll change my mind. If you wish to strongly disagree with my opinion (or flame me) please use e-mail.
Date: Sun 20-Jun-1990 15:19:06 From: Unknown Subject: Re: NeXT review in July "Unix Review" somewhat goofy In article <12285@fsg.UUCP>, reynolds@fsg.UUCP (Brian Reynolds) writes: > > NeXT/NetInfo network. But if you're trying to hook a NeXT to > someone else's Unix network you're in for some "interesting" times. Hmmm... This was the easiest part. We had no problems integrating our NeXT into the Current Unix network. The network has various VAX (DEC), SUN and HP machines on it... although I think the apollos are only on the net some of the times (don't ask me why :-) > Brian Reynolds | reynolds@fsg.com > Fusion Systems Group | -or- > 225 Broadway 35th floor | ...!uunet!fsg!reynolds > New York, NY 10007 | Phone: (212)285-8001 ======================================================================== Craig Schock schock@cpsc.UCalgary.CA University of Calgary (More reliable ->) schock@flip.cpsc.UCalgary.CA DAMMIT Jim I'm a doctor not an OCEOTRIPTAPHANTIAENTOLOGIST! ======================================================================== >From: feldman@umd5.umd.edu (Mark Feldman)
Date: Sun 20-Jun-1990 19:01:43 From: Unknown Subject: Re: NeXT review in July "Unix Review" somewhat goofy In article <12285@fsg.UUCP> reynolds@fsg.com (Brian Reynolds) writes: ... > The NeXT is definitely not like any "normal" Unix box. To >someone who probably only ran the cube for a week or two before >writing the review using niload, a utility that is unique to the >NeXT, to update a password is probably not obvious. I could be >completely wrong about this time scale, but this is the impression I >get from other reviews in this magazine. The review the NeXT gets is usually the results of the prejudice of the person reviewing it -- whether they started the review looking at a friendly UNIX box, a super Macintosh, or what PC's could have been if the IBM/Microsoft duo hadn't entered into a mutual dain-bramage pact. The fact that people don't know how to review a NeXT indicates that NeXT didn't do a good job of promoting the position their machine was to take in the market, or even making it self-evident when working on the machine. The NeXT takes from the various worlds and, in many ways, is more than the sum of its parts. Unfortunately, the reviewers tend to review the parts. > And it is not well >documented. niload is not mentioned in the passwd(1) man page >(which is where I would look if I didn't know "better"). Has anyone >seen a printed copy of the manuals that doesn't say "Preliminary?" >Is there a complete set of on-line documents? The problem is that 1.0 is not really 1.0. It's more like 0.95. The netinfo transition isn't complete, and many of the problems of the 0.8 and 0.9 releases still exist. > In my opinion, the NeXT is nice as a single user workstation. >It is easy to hook a bunch of them together and maintain a >NeXT/NetInfo network. But if you're trying to hook a NeXT to >someone else's Unix network you're in for some "interesting" times. Networking the NeXT hasn't been a problem here, though the difficulty therein is definitely dependent on the environment. >NeXT did things "right" and everybody else better figure it out and >step in line. Much of what NeXT did, or at least that part that gives users the most grief, is neither right nor wrong, just non-standard. Now, some would say that non-standard is the worst cut of all. Take netinfo (please, take protocols instead of reinventing an incompatible wheel? Pretty NeXT front ends could have been written and heterogeneous administration would have been a lot easier. It would also make transition to the OSF administration tools that much easier, assuming OSF compliance is a goal of NeXT. >If you're looking for a generic Unix box, the NeXT >isn't it and I think that's what the reviewer found out. NeXT's MACH/UNIX layer is the infrastructure. I think that a NeXT makes a pretty good generic UNIX box. What separates the NeXT -- and for that manner, any other UNIX-based workstation -- from the competition are the value-added features. NeXT's got some winner in that category, but they've also chosen to spend time (i.e., resources, i.e., time and money, i.e., money) on generating product differentiation in areas where standards are what is desired (e.g., netinfo). Now, those same resources could have given us features that would add to the NeXT's value in a heterogeneous network (e.g., a solid VT terminal emulator:-). >If you >want a machine with a different graphical front end, some nifty >bundled software, interesting hardware, and it happens to run Unix, >the NeXT might be for you. It all depends on what you want. It's not that the NeXT happens to run UNIX. It's that UNIX is a proven infrastructure with a software base. If the NeXT were too diferent, you'd be a lot less likely to see third-party software being ported over. That is, even if a new infrastructure could have been built by NeXT in that short a time. >Brian ... The problems a NeXT user faces makes it so easy to be an armchair NeXT CEO:-) The proof is in the pudding... Only time, 2.0, and the next NeXT will tell. Mark >From: bmcgrath@neutrino.urbana.mcd.mot.com (Robert E. McGrath)
Date: Sun 20-Jun-1990 13:42:22 From: Unknown Subject: Re: NeXT review in July "Unix Review" somewhat goofy Steve Hayman writes in part: | Newsgroups: comp.sys.next | Subject: NeXT review in July "Unix Review" somewhat goofy | Date: 19 Jun 90 15:02:02 GMT | | The July "Unix Review" has a review of the NeXT. Don't you find it | annoying when magazines review computers you already know something about? | The errors leap out at you. Anyway, the review is generally | mildly positive (with an overall raiting of "average"). | | here's what disturbs me. The reviewier claims that the machine is | missing some basic Unix features: | | "As a UNIX box - it lacks a number of essentials." | | and this seems to be based mostly on ... describes points from the article illustrating the perceived failings of NeXT Unix. ... describes the NeXT way to do the things complained about. | It would be fair to say that these points are not obvious to the casual | observer, but it is certainly unfair to slam a machine based on | misunderstandings about what it can do. Doesn't a reviewer have a | responsibility to find out if something they can't figure out really is | impossible or if it's just a misunderstanding? ... | Steve | -- | Steve Hayman Workstation Manager Computer Science Department Indiana U. This line says it all: "As a UNIX box - it lacks a number of essentials." As a long time Unix user who has only "looking over someones shoulder" experience with NeXT, I can easily see the point made by Unix Review. Look, a supposed Unix machine that doesn't work like every other Unix machine you've ever used is a problem. Practically the only reason anyone would want to use Unix is for its universality. Whatever NeXT is or is not good at, it is a PREPOSTEROUS Unix machine. Why pay a lot extra for a system that is a very unsatisfactory Unix? Love a cube for what it is or might become, but don't think it is a "Unix box"! >From: jacob@gore.com (Jacob Gore)
Date: Sun 21-Jun-1990 04:15:09 From: Unknown Subject: Re: NeXT review in July "Unix Review" somewhat goofy /comp.sys.next/bmcgrath@neutrino.urbana.mcd.mot.com (Robert E. McGrath)/Jun 20/ > Look, a supposed Unix machine that doesn't work like every other > Unix machine you've ever used is a problem. If all Unix machines you ever used worked the same way, you have had a very sheltered life. > Whatever NeXT is or is not good at, it is a PREPOSTEROUS Unix > machine. Why pay a lot extra for a system that is a very > unsatisfactory Unix? What don't you find satisfactory? Jacob
Date: Sun 21-Jun-1990 05:33:10 From: Unknown Subject: Re: NeXT review in July "Unix Review" somewhat goofy In article <12285@fsg.UUCP> reynolds@fsg.com (Brian Reynolds) writes: > In my opinion, the NeXT is nice as a single user workstation. >It is easy to hook a bunch of them together and maintain a >NeXT/NetInfo network. But if you're trying to hook a NeXT to >someone else's Unix network you're in for some "interesting" times. Steve Jobs is on record as saying the cube isn't intended as a workstation, but as a personal computer. Still, our department has some NeXTs running off our (primarily) SunOS network. There have been some bobbles (such as NetInfo and yp not being particularly friendly), but definitely far fewer than we experienced with other machines such as the Apollo and SGI machines. >If you're looking for a generic Unix box, the NeXT >isn't it and I think that's what the reviewer found out. It also can't be used to refuel cars, but I'm not sure what that has to do with it. I hadn't thought that Unix Review was `the magazine for generic UNIX boxes'; if it is, then maybe I should stop reading it. On the other hand, maybe the editors need to be reminded that interoperability isn't the same as cookie-cutter conformity. >If you >want a machine with a different graphical front end, some nifty >bundled software, interesting hardware, and it happens to run Unix, >the NeXT might be for you. It all depends on what you want. I'm not clear on this point. What other things might a workstation have? Low price is one, for which NeXT may be fairly faulted. Other than that, I'm not sure. A box of detergent? 4000 frequent flyer points? When we went through our tendering process for our new first year lab (36 UNIX workstations), graphical front end, bundled software, good hardware, and UNIX were all major criteria. Of course there are many other UNIX configurations besides workstations (multi-user computers in doctors' offices, and fault-tolerant transaction processing come to mind), but NeXT has never claimed to be in those markets. >Disclaimer: As you may have guessed I don't particularly like the >NeXT. However, I don't hate it and I realize a lot of other people >like it. It seems to me that liking or not liking a computer is a description of your emotional state. Assessing a particular machine's fitness for a particular purpose is a less emotionally loaded operation; however, to do so, one must spell out the purpose in question.
Date: Sun 21-Jun-1990 13:43:05 From: Unknown Subject: Re: NeXT review in July "Unix Review" somewhat goofy In article <1289@urbana.mcd.mot.com> bmcgrath@urbana.mcd.mot.com writes: >Whatever NeXT is or is not good at, it is a PREPOSTEROUS Unix >machine. Why pay a lot extra for a system that is a very >unsatisfactory Unix? In my experience, NeXT is more compatible with "real" UNIX (4.3bsd) than IBM, HP, Sequent, Pyramid, Convex, DEC (ultrix), or Sun. Just what are you comparing it to? The only big difference is NetInfo, which CAN BE TURNED OFF. If IYHO a non-standard feature that can be disabled makes a UNIX "preposterous", then your co-workers have my sympathies.
Date: Sun 23-Jun-1990 16:32:57 From: Unknown Subject: Re: NeXT review in July "Unix Review" somewhat goofy >From article <1990Jun20.151906.17648@calgary.uucp>, by schock@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Craig Schock): > In article <12285@fsg.UUCP>, reynolds@fsg.UUCP (Brian Reynolds) writes: >> >> NeXT/NetInfo network. But if you're trying to hook a NeXT to >> someone else's Unix network you're in for some "interesting" times. > > Hmmm... This was the easiest part. We had no problems integrating > our NeXT into the Current Unix network. The network has various VAX (DEC), > SUN and HP machines on it... although I think the apollos are only on the net > some of the times (don't ask me why :-) I agree. I bought a NeXT and hooked it up to the InterNet here at ULowell (the first NeXT at ULowell). It was a piece of cake! It only took me five minutes and I was ftping stuff to my NeXT from orst. A machine like this could put UNIX system managers out of business. Sean Brunnock >From: rca@cs.brown.edu (Ronald C.F. Antony)
Date: Sun 23-Jun-1990 20:46:09 From: Unknown Subject: Re: NeXT review in July "Unix Review" somewhat goofy > A machine like this could put UNIX system managers out of business. Take a guess why they don't like the machine :-) On a similar topic, I have pitty with the students who have to be at a place where systems are chosen according to their system-manageabilty (ifsuch a word exists) rather than what resources they offer to the developer. I give a sh.. about how long it takes a program to run (well, within reason) but iI spend a lot of my time on programming things like a GUI, I prefer a system that supports me. Also dont forget about the advantages of a db-server, it can remove a lot of the hassle involved in coping with file formats and the like. The same holds tru for the price. If you look at the price, not only do you get a lot of software with the machine that costs a fortune elsewhere, but you also save a lot of money in wages for development. It is not cost that is relevant, but opportunity-cost (Ihope this is the right translation ...) and under this angle the NeXT is very competitively priced. If you want just to run a dial-up BBS, well then look for a cheap 386... Ronald ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." Bernhard Shaw | rca@cs.brown.edu or antony@browncog.bitnet >From: rca@cs.brown.edu (Ronald C.F. Antony)
Date: Sun 24-Jun-1990 22:13:32 From: Unknown Subject: Re: NeXT review in July "Unix Review" somewhat goofy I finally dug up a copy of this review, and was pleasantly suprised to find that it's the first NeXT review I've seen that didn't strike me as either mindlessly glowing or mostly irrelevant. This is probably due to the fact that they treat it as a Unix box, and that's our primary focus here. Much of what makes the NeXT different from other Unix machines is glossed over or ignored, which is appropriate for the type of review they do in the "Tested Mettle" column. Several errors jump out at me in my casual reading of it, but they're not really that serious. 1. failed to locate all on-line documentation (in "Support and Documentation"). just not on paper. Since he found the Unix manuals, he should have been able to find the rest. Some of his other complaints (stuff missing, no index) are due to the unfinished state of the 1.0 documentation. I'm puzzled that he wasn't told that he could purchase everything but the Unix manuals on paper. 2. failed to understand use of Netinfo for password file (in "Operation and ease of use"). implementation is clumsy (the way that normal Unix files are used until you go multi-user probably had a lot to do with this gaffe). However, since he'd just finished discussing the GUI admin tools, he doesn't get off completely. 3. failed to locate Terminal, instead complaining about inability to run vi in Shell (same section). going to be anyone's first choice for the terminal emulator. It's NeXT's fault for supplying two incompatible attempts at a terminal program.
These are the contents of the former NiCE NeXT User Group NeXTSTEP/OpenStep software archive, currently hosted by Marcel Waldvogel and Netfuture.ch.